Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

You should worry more about your own logical reasoning skills than my reading comprehension. First of all, if you believe that you have the right to "say" you can shoot someone in the face, try saying that you're going to shoot the President in public. You'll see just how far that right goes. You cannot claim as a right something that you will find yourself locked up for.

Second, You claim that I do not have the right to shoot you in the face because it is "AGAINST THE LAW" but in the prior post you claim (erroneously) that I have the right to "lie in court" because "the First Amendment protects that right." Which way is it? Do I have illegal rights or not?

Let me define rights for you:

Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory.

Therefore, if it is illegal, IT IS NOT A RIGHT!

I can read just fine. Apparently you cannot so I will spell it out for you. My point is that it is NOT a legal (or natural) right if you cannot exercise it without fear of penalty from the government. I argue that there are voluminous violations of our Constitutional rights by the very people who swore to uphold the very same Constitution. In an ideal world, the only case which our Constitutionally enumerated rights SHOULD be curtailed is when they are in direct conflict with our OTHER rights.

uh... you CAN shout "fire" in a crowded theatre. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects that right.
You CAN "dirty talk" to a minor, the First Amendment protects that right.
You CAN lie in court, the First Amendment protects that right.

What the First Amendment DOES NOT DO is protect you from the consequences of that exercise of the FREEDOM to say what you want to if it is a violation of other Laws. The Constitution is Supreme.

That is the fucking stupidest thing I have ever read on Slashdot. By your logic, I have the right to shoot you in the face too, but I can't avoid the consequences of my exercise of my rights. Here's a clue for free: If the government locks you up when you do something, it's not a right, natural or granted, unless the government is illegitimate and is trampling those rights. If you happen to suffer consequences at the hand of your fellow man, but the government sits on its thumbs, it's a right.

You're not allowed to scream "fire!" in a crowd,
you're not allowed to "dirty talk" to a minor,
you're not allowed to lie in court,... and that list goes on and on.

Only the Constitution doesn't say "except..." The First Amendment is pretty unambiguous.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The current "court interpretations" of unambiguous text is the way we ended up with free speech zones, civil asset forfeiture, warrantless wiretaps, eminent domain for the benefit of private interests, and the rationale that everything is interstate commerce even when it isn't. We strict construction Constitutionalists have taken a lot of shit from those who happen to like their "current" interpretations, calling us mindless Libertarians or anarchists, but you are only one swing vote away from an "interpretation" you can't tolerate. So next time you are robbed by your local policeman who just happens to think you are carrying a bit too much cash to be normal, at least you can pat yourself on the back and say, "Well, at least we can get those dirty talking perverts, or those nasty Megaupload pirates, or those filthy traitors who told the world we are spying on our own people." Just remember that when the words don't say what is clearly written, anybody can twist them to mean what they want the next time around.

[...] most people who complain about the restriction of their free speech either have no clue, or forcefully refuse to acknowledge that that freedom is only valid against the gouverment (sic), not their fellow man.

Not to mention that Smart TVs have a bad record of having their interfaces/applications updated.

This was actually the primary reason I opted for the ROKU and a short bus TV. I had read many horror stories of services no longer working in reviews of older "smart" TVs because the firmware was never updated. My ROKU updates all the time. Plus it's got an awesome remote or I can control it with my phone! And way more services than smart TVs. And lots of WAY COOL hidden channels too.

Ho-lee shit! I am so glad I opted for a dumb TV. My TV was $200 less than the "smart" version. I bought a $99 ROKU and little did I know that I was way more than $101 ahead in the game. Short bus television FTW.

its horseshit scare tactics that dont work anymore over nonsense bullshit that has no leg to stand on

so who cares, move it to 1 am, doesnt mean a damn thing

I had no idea the doomsday clock was still a thing. The last I heard about it was way before the Berlin Wall fell. This is clearly a PR stunt to try to remain relevant in a world that no longer worries about Soviet ICBMs raining down.

Some of us don't TRY to get out of jury duty. I get paid by my employer regardless. I only have to surrender my $10 per day. It gets me out of the office and I get to see how the legal system works in practice. A fair number of my fellow jurors were in the same boat. In fact, the prosecutor asked specifically who would not get paid by their employers if they served and were summarily dismissed without further questions.

I might add that the prosecutor asked if there were any in the pool that just did not want to serve and as long as we had enough to be seated, they were dismissed too.

If the cardinal rule is "Don't piss off Amazon", Amazon has too much power in the market.

If Amazon has "too much power" it is because they deliver the best shopping experience and customers choose to take advantage of it. Hatchette "owns" the biggest authors and book titles and as such should be able to take their ball and go play elsewhere. The problem is that they want to play with someone else's toys and they want to call the game and the rules too.

Bullshit. That would be laughed out of court, even if by some weird oversight it had been left on the books, which I find hard to believe in the first place.

They don't even need to pull out some ancient law. They just lie. I was pulled over a few weeks ago. I was leaving a Wal*Mart after some late grocery shopping at 2:30AM and was pulled over for an "unsafe lane change." This is despite the fact that I was in the same lane I entered after leaving the parking lot. I had no reason to change lanes since I needed to turn in one mile. After he checked my license, he admitted that he was looking for drunks since it was bar closing time. I just happened to be the only car on the road.

I was let go without so much as a verbal warning once he could see me in person and knew I had not been drinking. If I had anything illegal in the car, I would have been busted; all because the cop pulled me over on an absolute lie. I could have been mouthy and let him know I knew it was a lie, but I wanted to go home and since he was not above lying to me why would it be different in court?

The argument that there are so many laws that everyone is breaking the law every minute of the day, and so The Government can just pull you in and lock you up for life on a whim, is just an excuse to justify breaking any law that inconveniences you, on the basis that all laws are equally absurd.

It's hard to take the law seriously when the enforcers are willing to lie in order to catch "criminals." Either the law applies to everyone or it applies to no one.

I made up my mind based on the alleged and unsworn facts that the media have presented. I am open to having my opinion changed once presented with further compelling facts. Unfortunately, I can't be bothered to read the transcripts of the grand jury evidence that was unprecedentedly released to the public.

Gas prices sometimes vary 10% on a weekly basis. So when prices are down by 25% for a single month, the do-gooders want to raise it back up and "hope" we won't notice when gas costs rise back to their "normal" levels? So I should expect $5 a gallon gas when prices restabilize? I pay surcharges on shipping, trash hauling and a number of other services because of high prices. Fuel prices are one on the reasons the economy has had trouble recovering.

Take your social engineering tax and go suck my balls. When I get 20% annual raises, you can ask too.